VOICE position paper Humanitarian aid in European Commission

VOICE (Voluntary Oganisations in Cooperation in Emergencies) is a network
representing 83 European NGOs active in humanitarian aid worldwide. Seeking to
involve its members in advocacy, lobbying and information exchange, VOICE is the
main NGO interlocutor with the EU on emergency aid, relief and disaster risk
reduction and promotes the values of humanitarian NGOs.
September 2011
VOICE POSITION PAPER
Humanitarian aid in European Commission external action funding
(Multi-Annual Financial Framework 2014-2020)
In June 2011, the European Commission (EC) launched its proposal for the future
European budget. The proposal looks into the challenges of the changing global
environment and sets priorities for action both inside and outside of the EU to
address them. In accordance with the Lisbon Treaty- which clearly seeks to enable
the EU to play a greater role in the world-, the EC proposal attributes additional
funding to external action, including humanitarian aid. EU humanitarian aid as an
instrument will not solve all challenges faced across the world by itself, but acting in
solidarity with those in need is a core European value. Quality humanitarian action
also provides a solid foundation for reconstruction and rehabilitation which prepares
the way for sustainable development.
Strong evidence of rising humanitarian needs across the globe is given by the United
Nations having launched the biggest funding appeal ever (€ 5.7 billion) for 2011. Over
the coming years, humanitarian needs and the related costs will continue to increase
due to external factors such as climate change, population growth and pressure on
scarce resources, leading to more devastating natural disasters and conflicts. While
both the EC- in its Communication[i]- and the European Parliament[ii] explicitly
recognise this trend, it is not reflected in the EC financial proposal in which the
amount of funding for humanitarian aid decreases over time. This is a clear
inconsistency between analysis and resources, which will have a direct bearing on
the lives of millions of people.
VOICE recommendations:
1. A separate budget line for EU humanitarian aid in the next Multi-Annual
Financial Framework (MFF) is crucial.
2. The EC humanitarian aid budget line requires a minimum of 7 billion€ in
the MFF period.
3. The European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps needs to add value to
humanitarian action.
4. A predictable proportion of funding from development instruments should
be dedicated to Disaster Risk Reduction.
5. The EU has to make tangible adaptations to its financial instruments,
making them more flexible to ensure the effective transition from relief to
recovery and development.
Humanitarian aid is a common European goal
Reaching out to people in need across the world, humanitarian aid is essential in
implementing European values and demonstrating the solidarity of European citizens
towards those affected by disaster. Therefore, it is not surprising that EU citizens widely
support EU humanitarian aid- a significant 79% expressed support in the 2010
Eurobarometer[iii].

In addition, providing rapid, needs-based support to vulnerable populations following man-made
and natural disasters is a strategic objective of the EU, in line with the EU 2020 strategy. This is
confirmed in the Lisbon Treaty, which contains a specific legal basis for EU Humanitarian Aid.
Moreover, in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid[iv], the member states, the
European Parliament and the EC have agreed upon common values, principles and objectives of
EU humanitarian aid. They reiterated that humanitarian aid is a shared competence between
them, which builds upon a long tradition.
The added value of European Commission humanitarian aid
European Commission (EC) humanitarian aid money is efficiently spent, as confirmed in the
assessment by the European Court of Auditors, and accountably spent through direct funding to
a diversity of professional humanitarian civilian actors (NGOs, Red Cross, United Nations).
These humanitarian actors manage to reach a wide variety of affected populations in conflict
situations and natural disasters. Their long term involvement is crucial for ensuring a
professional, far-reaching response to humanitarian crises.
The solid field expertise of the EC’s humanitarian and civil protection aid department (DG ECHO)
(112 experts and 315 local staff in the field) combined with the professional implementation by
the partners mentioned above, contribute to quality delivery of aid and better targeting of disaster
affected populations. Recent independent evaluations confirm that the EC is a quality donor.
DARA (Development Assistance Research Associates) ranks ECHO 6th of 23 OECD donors,
while the UK Department for International Development states that “Programming, peer reviews,
planning, procurement, independent implementation monitoring and evaluation are standard
across the EC and allow the EC to make efficiency savings”.[v]
In 2010, 140 million people have benefited directly and indirectly from EC humanitarian aid[vi].
The EC structures for humanitarian aid enable the EC to respond in a timely and effective way to
sudden disasters, showing flexibility in allocations and means of response. Moreover, EC
humanitarian aid maintains a unique balance between addressing sudden emergencies and
forgotten, long term crises. The reason is that EC humanitarian aid is based on professional
humanitarian needs assessments, looking solely at needs of affected populations with the aim of
saving lives and reducing suffering. Due to its special focus and way of working, ECHO funding
is essential to complement member states’ funding. This coordinated EU approach enables
implementing partners to reach a far greater number of disaster affected populations, covering
forgotten crises as well as those in the media spotlight.
Collectively, the EU (EC and member states) accounts for about 40% of the world’s humanitarian
aid[vii]. Due to its scale and composition, the EU can mobilise an adequate amount of money and
respond to disasters in a coordinated and comprehensive way. In addition, as the biggest
humanitarian donor, the EU can influence the international humanitarian agenda and multiply
good donorship practices.
FUTURE FUNDING FOR EU HUMANITARIAN AID: RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A separate budget line for EU humanitarian aid in the next Multi-Annual Financial
Framework (MFF) is crucial in order to enable humanitarian decision making at EC level to
remain independent from security and geopolitical interests. This is necessary to uphold the
humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence, which were
agreed upon in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid as the fundamental basis for EU
humanitarian aid. “This principled approach is essential to the acceptance and ability of the EU,
and humanitarian actors in general, to operate on the ground in often complex political and
security contexts” (art.10 Consensus). It is fundamental for the security of implementing partners
and affected populations that humanitarian aid is perceived as independent in the field.

2. The EC humanitarian aid budget line requires a minimum of 7 billion€ in the MFF
period. In 2010, 1.1 billion€ was needed and efficiently spent by the EC through its partners.
However, for the last few years DG ECHO consistently had to use budgetary reinforcements
(the Emergency Aid Reserve, EAR) to be able to meet humanitarian needs, demonstrating a
consistent funding shortage- also recognised by the European Parliament. Also the transfer of
funding from the European Development Fund (on average 30 million€ per year) proved to be
important. In addition to an overall increase in funding, given that humanitarian needs are
expected to increase, the level of funding should go up during the MFF period and priority
access for humanitarian aid to the EAR has to be ensured.
3. The European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps needs to add value to humanitarian
action. As humanitarian needs continue to rise and financial times are difficult, VOICE
underlines the need for regular evaluation of the Corps as it develops, making sure it really
represents the best use of scarce resources to provide EU assistance to crisis-affected
populations.
4. A predictable proportion of funding from development instruments should be
dedicated to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). This proportion has to be linked to the level of
risk. The EU should support preparedness of disaster prone populations, including building up
their institutional capacity. Moreover, development instruments should be able to directly fund
DRR initiatives, especially those which address vulnerabilities at a grassroots level. Close
coordination between humanitarian and development funding instruments is essential to ensure
that the DRR experience of the humanitarian community is effectively carried through into
development programmes. This will not only lead to a better sustainability of DRR activities
undertaken by humanitarian actors and to poverty reduction, but it will also save money by
mitigating future crises. The disasters in the Horn of Africa, Haiti and Pakistan painfully
demonstrated the need for investment in DRR and widespread DRR mainstreaming. DRR
measures are needed before the event, not after, when the humanitarian crisis strikes and
humanitarian funding becomes available.
5. The EU has to make tangible adaptations to its financial instruments, making them
more flexible to ensure the effective transition from relief to recovery and development
phases. In order to enhance the impact of the EU’s action in the humanitarian field, the link
between relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) should be ensured. However, under
current instruments, EU financial support to LRRD is insufficient and ineffective. There is a lack
of follow-up of short-term funding cycles and a lack of flexibility in longer-term instruments. The
next MFF must foresee reliable and flexible funding for LRRD in order to ensure that aid is more
sustainable and adapted to local needs. A certain percentage of development funding (country
strategy papers) should be reserved for LRRD (depending on the needs of the country
concerned). In addition, the upcoming revision of the Financial Regulation provides an
opportunity to simplify the financial rules for the administration and implementation of EU
funding. This could facilitate the allocation of LRRD funding and diminish the administrative
burden which EU regulations impose on implementing partners.
[i] EC Communication, 29 June 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM-2011-
500_Part_I_en.pdf
[ii] European Parliament Resolution on the MFF, 8 June 2011,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.dolang=2&procnum=INI/2010/2211.
[iii] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_343_en.pdf, p.38.
[iv] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=OJ:C:2008:025:0001:0012:EN:PDF
[v] http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/mar/multilateral_aid_review.pdf, p.179.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Speech Commissioner Georgieva at Order of Malta conference, 27-28 January 2011.